IndieAgora

The world is full of double standards. Colonial violence was celebrated as the march of civilization, but when it came back at the metropole it was suddenly barbarism. What the video about Charlie Kirk hints at is exactly this hypocrisy: violence is judged not by its nature but by who commits it. Larry May, in his work on genocide, would recognize this pattern. He insists that the crime is not simply killing but the deliberate destruction of the social identity of a group. Groups are made fragile by how they are seen, defined, and stripped of recognition. To be made into a scapegoat is already to suffer a kind of social death.

The radical media world Kirk helped build resembles the structures May analyzed in Rwanda. Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines poured hate into the airwaves, a background hum that made violence seem not only possible but inevitable. May argued that such incitement is not innocent talk; it is a crime in its own right because it manufactures the conditions for atrocity. The Turning Point strategy of memes and soundbites, the sly framing of minorities as threats, follows the same logic: create suspicion, erode dignity, isolate communities until they seem expendable.

The responsibility does not lie only with those who commit acts of violence. It stretches outwards, into the networks of complicity. May describes this in legal terms: aiding, abetting, instigating. The video describes it in the language of culture wars, TikTok feeds, and donor networks. Both point to the same conclusion: leaders and broadcasters shape the emotional climate, and the violence that follows cannot be disentangled from the rhetoric that preceded it.

Yet the danger is not only in words but in the predictable cycle they unleash. The video insists that violence breeds retaliation, that those denied recognition will eventually strike back, while May warns against accepting retaliation as natural or inevitable. For him, cycles of vengeance corrode the very possibility of justice. The answer cannot be private acts of violence but collective legal processes that hold instigators to account. Still, the resonance remains: when social identity is stripped away and groups are made into objects of fear, the ground is laid for catastrophe. What we call politics is often just the management of who gets to count as fully human. And in the shadows of that management, hatred mutates into something far more dangerous.

So many have come to accept this Hobbesian Realism that it\'s no wonder laws are becoming stricter.

It is telling that so many rush to Hobbes as if realism were the only description of our condition. Hobbes saw the state as a bulwark against chaos, but also as the very structure that fixes who may live and who may be sacrificed. When people accept that violence is natural, inevitable, that it will be answered only by stricter laws and harsher rulers, they are already rehearsing the logic of the Leviathan.

Larry May’s warning is sharper: when groups are stripped of dignity, when social death is normalized, when the rhetoric of suspicion is allowed to circulate as if it were mere opinion, you are not securing order—you are preparing catastrophe. Laws may grow stricter, but if they are written on the back of fear and scapegoating, they serve only to legitimize the cycle. The more the Hobbesian view becomes common sense, the more people accept that politics is nothing but survival. And once politics is reduced to that, the threshold to dehumanization and atrocity has already been crossed.

This kind of Hobbesian chaos makes people more genuinely calculable.

Your video kind of talks about the person, and this one does too from the mainstream media in Canada:



Lets see if certain subtle language pops up. Like how the word *ss*ss*n*t**n has been specifically used, which makes it sound much more political than just m*rd*r.

You’re stitching a lot of threads into one thesis: crisis > fear > crackdown, with both fringe actors and institutions feeding the loop. If that’s right, pick one concrete mechanism so we can test it. For example: which post-crisis policy measurably reduced liberty without improving safety, and what was the incitement that sold it? Bring one case with data; we’ll examine cause → effect instead of swimming in links.

Sounds good, I'll see if I can do that, in the meantime though, you've hopefully read all that, and I'll move them to one thread or off somewhere and possibly come back with something based on all that information.

I have a thread ready for this purpose from 2017 that I could use potentially, but I am still awaiting more weird stuff popping up and the dedication to a name and symbol set to make itself known regarding that one.

I may put these in there now, or I may take them away in case they might be too spicy, besides being messy or too broad for these threads.